ie8 fix
Click Here
madison

Google dislikes marketing and PR and that's why new services fail

By | June 22, 2010, 11:23pm PDT

Summary: Google’s anti-marketing culture prevents it from creating succesful new services…

Google has had a long string of failures. It encourages its engineers to spend 20% of their time developing side projects but when those projects reach launch stage, their take-off is nearly always very disappointing.

Take a look at some of Google’s failures.

Colin Gibbs reporting on GigaOM:

    • Google Lively was a web-based virtual environment that allowed as many as 20 people to sit in a virtual room and chat with each other. The offering debuted in July 2008 only to have Google pull the plug a mere four months later.
    • Google Print Ads was dropped earlier this year after the company’s vision of bringing web-like automation to the world of traditional media failed to materialize. The effort went belly-up just three weeks before the death of Google Audio Ads, which ended a three-year run in February after the company failed to gain traction in the radio ad game.

    • Google Answers spent a year in beta before a full-blown launch in May 2003, but the effort to create a fee-based knowledge market never gained much traction outside a small base of users and the service was dropped in late 2006.

    • The social networking site Orkut launched early in 2004 as an independent project of noted Google developer Orkut Büyükkökten and has caught fire in Brazil, a market that accounts for roughly 50 percent of its membership. The site reportedly claims roughly 100 million users, which is impressive, but Google can’t be happy that its effort is virtually unknown in Europe and North America while Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace and others have gained such impressive traction.

    • Google Catalog Search debuted in 2001 as a way for consumers to go online to check out their favorite print catalogs that had been scanned and uploaded. Of course, retailers were already taking their inventories online themselves, and the effort was put to rest earlier this year.

    • Google Health was released as a beta test in May 2008, but the service has yet to find much of an audience among insurers or the general public. Which may have something to do with the combination of the words “health” and “beta test.”
    • The location-based service Dodgeball was shut down in 2009 after Google had acquired it four years earlier, and while Google continues to operate Jaiku – a social networking service it picked up in 2007 — the company has effectively abandoned the project. The technologies and expertise from both startups is being incorporated into other Google businesses and projects, however.

    I can easily add a lot more to this list. Google Video; Google’s acquisition of Jot; Google Wave; Knol; Checkout; Catalogs; Base; Squared; and Google Buzz could be the latest.

    Google has tremendous scale so it is puzzling to some why so many of its services should have been such failures. But, it isn’t that surprising if you consider its culture because Google believes that good products will find their users based on their own merits.

    What Google fails to recognize is that it needs to assign marketing support. Without marketing support it is wasting the cream of its engineering talent.

    Have you seen any marketing for Google services beyond an occasional text ad?

    I’ve never been contacted by any PR companies, or Google corporate comms people to talk about a new Google service or product. Yet I receive countless such invitations from smaller companies trying to get media attention.

    Google’s failure to recognize the need for effective marketing is deep rooted within its engineering culture. Engineers don’t believe in marketing. Many software engineers will deride a company’s success (e.g Apple) as “it’s just marketing.”

    But marketing is not easy and successful marketing is not a commodity (yet engineers are becoming a commodity.)

    Google’s own success grew out of a non-marketing approach; Google search was simply a better product. Google is proud that it didn’t use marketing to become a success.

    But times are different today. There is a tremendous amount of media already on the Internet and this level will rise to a media tsunami as companies and individuals make full use of their media publishing capabilities. The media tsunami will drown less able companies, products, and services.

    Effective marketing is going to become ever more important, and more expensive, simply because the media tsunami is raising the bar for everyone to stand out.

    Company culture is very difficult to change and it changes slowly and that’s why Google will continue to launch new services, and it will continue to fail because it doesn’t understand the need for follow up marketing and PR.

    And that means it will continue to remain a one-trick pony.


    Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

    Topics

    Tom Foremski reports on the business and culture of Silicon Valley at the intersection of technology and media.

    Disclosure

    Tom Foremski

    Tom Foremski is the editor and publisher of Silicon Valley Watcher and Silicon Valley Watch. Tibco Software is an advertiser.

    Biography

    Tom Foremski

    In May 2004, Tom Foremski became the first journalist to leave a major newspaper, the Financial Times, to make a living as a full-time journalist blogger. He writes the popular news blog Silicon Valley Watcher--reporting on the business of Silicon Valley.

    Tom arrived in San Francisco in 1984, and has covered US technology markets for leading computer journals around the world.

    30
    Comments

    Join the conversation!

    Just In

    ??? Google is a financially successful company.
    mr1972 23rd Jun 2010
    Yeah, they focus on product diversification even though their main revenue is ads and data collection for ads. But that is just how they make money and it is a revenue stream just like a licensing fee would be a revenue stream.

    A company should toss out products that can't stand on their own merits. A product that gets a push from marketing magic may make some short term revenue but unless the product itself is solid all you have done is manage to sell snake oil to the masses. This is going to negatively affect your next sales cycle.

    Does Apple do marketing well? I think so, but if their products were not pretty solid, they would be out of business.

    Google churns out different products and allows the market place and consumers to decide which ones they like and will use. That doesn't sound like a bad strategy. I use Google to search, I use gmail, google apps. I am going to check out voice but I am not sure on that one yet. I have used Picas, the calendar app and Google maps. Sounds to me like they have more than one product. They use ads to fund their company, so do television studios.
    Area. And, sometimes things that look like failure, with persistence, become successes. Take Windows 1 and Windows 2 for instance. What if Microsoft had given up after version 2 did not succeed??

    Maybe, Google could use some more marketing skills, but, with persistence, some of those "failures" you are talking about could become multi-billion franchises in the long run.

    MS has also had a number of spectacular "failures" as you call them in recent years. The only things bringing in big money are the Windows and Office monopolies.
    0 Votes
    + -
    are as transparent as your resume
    I find it funny that when MS (or any company) has a failure, you use that to say how bad they are, yet when Google has failure after failure you say but, with persistence, some of those "failures" you are talking about could become multi-billion franchises in the long run .

    Google is smart enough to understand that when something has no future, or will never be a sucsess in the long run, that you pull the plug on it, which is exactly what they did, they pulled the plugs.
    0 Votes
    + -
    They have search, but, there are a lot of ads outside of search. They have Android, which, outsold iPhone last month. They have Google Voice, which will be very hot. They have gmail, calendar and everything in the Google Apps inventory. So, they focus on ads to monetize, but, they are getting ad inventory from a lot of different areas they have invested in.
    10 years if you want a comparison.
    0 Votes
    + -
    RE: Google's failures with new services will continue...
    de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 22nd Jun 2010
    @Donnie - a few things:

    1) Android is free - Google makes no money on it but pays out a considerable amount for the staff that create, test, market and promote the OS.

    2) Google IS a one-trick-pony - they make money in one place - advertising sales ... and that's it. EVERYTHING else they do is an attempt to disrupt someone else: ChromeOS is meant to disrupt MS/Apple, Chrome is meant to disrupt Mozilla/MS/Apple, etc.

    3) Now compare Microsoft's return for initial investors vs. Google's return for initial investors: MS is up more than 25,465% whereas Google is "only" up 348%. It's early days for Google right now - it'll be interesting to see how their stock fares if they continue with only one revenue source ... which now is experiencing the first real competition in its history.
    have many different products. If a company has many different products, and they monetize them by charging an up-front license fee, does that mean they are a one trick pony? They clearly ONLY make money from license fees!!!

    And, you really have no idea how much money Google makes from advertising on the Android platform. And, destabilizing a competitor trying to crush you IS priceless.
    0 Votes
    + -
    Yup...
    ctunk 22nd Jun 2010
    Yup..Google sure is hurting right now. I do not even know how they stay in business to be honest with you. They will be shutting down the doors within the next two or three months because of ineffective marketing!!!

    WTF MAN!!! If only they had you at the helm they possibly could become the largest player in the IT sector...OH..really...they already are...well WTF are you talking about marketing then and their "need" to change the processes that got them to the top.

    Google is quite simple. Give people latitude to develop and create and not squash creativity. While employing only the smartest and brightest minds.....I think they will do fine!!!! LOL
    @ctunk
    And it is quite refreshing that company stands alone on its products vs. some "corporate image" that is complete BS anyway. Nothing is perfect but at least they do not try and fool people into something they are not...personally I find that very refreshing in this day in age when everything is about "flash and flare" while substance and great products are a second thought. As a matter of fact I would argue that marketing is a signficant hinderance to quality. That concept is quite deep and can not be accomplished to make people understand in a ZDNET post but Marketing and other Business Owners are more concerned with profit/image/greed and will cut and slash anything and anyone that can be seen as expendable for profit. How did companies survive before t.v. and internet??? THEY MADE GOOD ****!!!! Google writes good code and has a heck of a server infrastructure. They do what they do well and all day long money just rolls in. THeir side projects are just that...SIDE PROJECTS.
    0 Votes
    + -
    RE: Google's failures with new services will continue...
    de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 22nd Jun 2010
    @ctunk - erm ... what planet are you on exactly?

    Google has done all it can to portray itself as doing "no evil" and yet they secretly collect huge numbers of IP addresses mapped to GPS locations and scan every email send via GMail.

    Google is FAR scarier than Apple and Microsoft combined.
    @ctunk
    And lastly the stock is up some $2 and some odd sense to nearly $500 PER SHARE MAN!!!!!!! NUFF SAID. Stick to writing articles and let engineers engineer and business people (they do exist at Google LOL) run businesses.

    You just stick with the typewriter (nostalgic is it not)
    So it makes sense that Google pulls the plug on losing propositions.
    0 Votes
    + -
    @ctunk: Come on...you're putting us on, right? You have more cents than that.
    Google monetizes with advertising, Microsoft monetizes by asking for your hard earned dollars up front. Of course, the only way Google can do that is because it costs them a lot less to deliver as web applications.
    @John Zern
    Yes, I believe it makes total sense to pull the plug on anything that deviates from the lines they have drawn if there are doubts in a wide array of areas, and what they choose as a primarily focus as a company. That does not mean they should stop those ventures those. One might be golden!

    They have endless buckets of cash. hey branch out, often to see what type of interest exists in a given product or service, more as experiments, and if it is not a home run they do not believe an "experiment" is worth lost labor, monetary risk, image, and what their corporate goals are at a given time. In short, they have money they "play" with, but their focus is sharp and dedicated on the larger picture what they are envisioning for a long term strategy at Google. Different things have different weights and importance at this time. Why spread yourself think and risk a great thing if they think something is amiss?

    Anymore, the person that actually values a large corporation, employing American's, that do a great job at what they do, is the crazy one!! Everyone is so extreme on every issue. I have several friends/colleagues that I have been fortunate enough to cross paths with over my career that have ended up at Google and they love it.

    I just find it very difficult to listen to those who claim to be an expert on a company that they have not dissected with a fine tooth comb. How many hours have any of you worked at Google? What makes you an expert? And I am the crazy one because I actually believe they are doing phenomenal work in the science/engineering/computing world? I also believe, as an outsider, people have become overly important in their own minds and believe they know everything about everything. Google markets the way they market for very specific reasons. It is not an accident.

    Maybe we are just not privy to their ideals and what they "want" Google to become. Maybe we just do not, dare I say "know" the answer. But we know everything! happy Maybe ..just maybe..we do not know better than Google how to run Google. It is possible!

    But of course if you do not hate on everything anymore you are the crazy one. The crazy become normal, and the normal become crazy. I just call it rationale and logic, but others call it insanity. It is laughable that people that have never spent a moment in a meeting at Google can spew absolute truths about what they want to become as a company and act like they know what is "best for Google"

    I just will kindly disagree...jealousy is nasty disease. Check yourself every day of misery follows. Be happy for them!! It is an amazing rise and story of our time. Understand what they do online (advertising), search, soon cloud, OS's. Anything else is "toy" to them. Maybe in a few years you will see this transition I just think they have bigger fish to fry than Dodgeball at this time...Maybe...just Maybe...
    Area. And, sometimes things that look like failure, with persistence, become successes. Take Windows 1 and Windows 2 for instance. What if Microsoft had given up after version 2 did not succeed??

    Maybe, Google could use some more marketing skills, but, with persistence, some of those "failures" you are talking about could become multi-billion franchises in the long run.

    MS has also had a number of spectacular "failures" as you call them in recent years. The only things bringing in big money are the Windows and Office monopolies.

    Finally, these are all very new frontiers, and the only way to learn is by trying and figuring out what does and does not work. Because Google does a lot of trying, they will also have more failures.
    0 Votes
    + -
    RE: Google's failures with new services will continue...
    de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 22nd Jun 2010
    @DonnieBoy - Google is doing precisely what you suggest it should not - it's giving up at the first hurdle rather than applying some actual effort and comitting real resources to products/features its launched.

    In fact, I think you'll find that MS earns a great deal of money from many of its products other than Windows and Office:
    Sharepoint Server
    SQL Server
    Exchange Server
    System Center
    Developer Tools
    etc...

    And a lot of what they earn in Windows/Office revenues are generated due to many of the supporting products and services that MS releases for free (e.g. DirectX, .NET, XNA, Silverlight, etc).

    Again, Google is still in its pre-pubescent state right now - they make buckets of cash from selling advertising, but that's all they make money from. It'll be interesting to see if the market remains enamoured with them if they continue to be a one-trick pony.
    them. You can NOT ride everything to the end, you do have to prioritize.
    0 Votes
    + -
    I knew all the replies would be from engineers...
    0 Votes
    + -
    LOL!
    John Zern 22nd Jun 2010
    It took me a minute... happy
    prices over the last 10 years.
    0 Votes
    + -
    Like any other large company....
    tricktytom 22nd Jun 2010
    ...This is typical of many large companies that have a taste of success early on. These businesses frequently come to believe that their early successes are precursers to future success; their corporate culture perpetrates the myth that everything they produce is pure gold, when, in fact, its often pure ****.(Microsoft Zune, Courier, Kin)
    0 Votes
    + -
    RE: Google's failures with new services will continue...
    de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 22nd Jun 2010
    @tricktytom - Zune is awesome. It's not been a wild success yet, but will be FAR more accessible with its integration with XBox and WinPhone, etc.

    Courier was a proof of concept - it wasn't even a product, was never manufactured or even released.

    Kin ... yeah ... not too successful yet, but let's see where MS takes it in the future - it's bound to end up as a lower-end WindowsPhone or may be cut entirely.

    Either way, MS' annual revenues are a pretty good indication that MS has more of a clue than you give them credit for.
    0 Votes
    + -
    I think this article does a disservice to everyone by discussing all the failures without acknowledging any of the good things that Google has done. Google Command Line just recently came out. Google Voice is now out of beta. Google Latitude does work and has helped some businesses. Each of these products work as a cloud app and can be combined with other services. Google Android is immensely successful and Chrome OS is not that far out. This article ignores this and many, many more apps that are successful and work well. Does this guy work for Apple or something?
    "Google can do no wrong" articles, he was trying to balance it out. But, he himself has written articles about the importance of embracing failure, and how important that is for the silicon valley culture. So, you can expect Google to fail a lot. They know they have to fail a lot in order to have a few great successes.
    @de-void
    The article was not about which company is "scarier". Who cares they track IP addresses. So do we and everyone else!!!! We also track browser, your clicks, how long you were on the site, if you stopped at the shopping cart, etc.

    Of course they track IP's!!! Who cares. Do you even know what an IP Address truly is? So what...they are tracking something service providers own. Whoooaa....

    I bet you used Google 10 times today. Anyway learn a bit about reading comprehension. If the article was focused on which company was "scariest" then yes Google has the power WHICH PROVES MY POINT ABOUT MARKETING!!!

    They are who they are..there is nothing "hidden" Most be a bunch of paranoid Republicans. I didn't think Republican's believed in science...and I have one for you idiot Dems too...We all know you invented the internet!!

    The point being Google is Google. If MS, Apple, or anyone had that power they would certainly misuse it. I do believe Google holds firm against the powers that be and IF THEY USE that information so be it. I chose to Search through them. GET IT??? But they do not sell it....and they secure it greatly!!

    Anytime a company gets big you have all the paranoids pop out of the woodwork...here is an idea...just do not business with Google if you are scared of the boogy man...or learn a bit about systems and realize that it is just electrons and circuits man...RELAX!!
    0 Votes
    + -
    You made my day!
    hretic 23rd Jun 2010
    @ctunk it was so refreshing to read your opinions here, you very much put down what i had in mind....

    cheers! happy

    p.s.: i let google have all my data saved on their servers, for 2 reasons, they give me very relevant search results, excellent services, and i also have a history of my online activity maintained so that i myself can retrace my steps.
    google is anything but a one trick pony, google is like a genie lol!
    0 Votes
    + -
    many companies have a long string of failures including Apple. In fact Apple made so many bad decisions, it was once on the verge of being bankrupt. Yet Google has never faced that situation lol. And the most widely used native app on IPhone are facebook and google maps. Very few people play those f*** games available on AppStore(except for jobless Apple fanbois)
    0 Votes
    + -
    1 billion dollars paid out for around 250000 apps equates to around 4000 dollars per app over 3 years. Huge money indeed lol. I am impressed, 4000 dollars wont even buy a honda civic wow. Maybe all those cheap coders sitting in their underwears with lights switched off, writing all those f**t apps for iphone need to get a proper education and try to get a job in Google or other interesting companies like Microsoft instead of depending on Steve Jobs and his magical products.
    Lol - Listen to this guy.. wow.. Yah - all it takes is one success wink - and google has had plenty of those.. At least they are innovating which keeps them on top.
    0 Votes
    + -
    Yeah, they focus on product diversification even though their main revenue is ads and data collection for ads. But that is just how they make money and it is a revenue stream just like a licensing fee would be a revenue stream.

    A company should toss out products that can't stand on their own merits. A product that gets a push from marketing magic may make some short term revenue but unless the product itself is solid all you have done is manage to sell snake oil to the masses. This is going to negatively affect your next sales cycle.

    Does Apple do marketing well? I think so, but if their products were not pretty solid, they would be out of business.

    Google churns out different products and allows the market place and consumers to decide which ones they like and will use. That doesn't sound like a bad strategy. I use Google to search, I use gmail, google apps. I am going to check out voice but I am not sure on that one yet. I have used Picas, the calendar app and Google maps. Sounds to me like they have more than one product. They use ads to fund their company, so do television studios.

    Join the conversation!

    Formatting +
    BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
    • [b] Bold [/b]
    • [i] Italic [/i]
    • [u] Underline [/u]
    • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
    • [q] "Quote" [/q]
    • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
    • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
    • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
    • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
    ie8 fix
    Click Here
    ie8 fix

    The best of ZDNet, delivered

    ZDNet Newsletters

    Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

    Facebook Activity

    White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
    ie8 fix
    ie8 fix